The New York & Erie Railroad Company v. Sabin

• Decision Date: 01 January 1856
• Citation: 26 Pa. 242
• Parties: The New York & Erie Railroad Company versus Sabin.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

26 Pa. 242

The New York & Erie Railroad Company versus Sabin.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Susquehanna county.

W. and W. H. Jessup, for plaintiffs in error.—There is no right of taxation, on the part of this state, upon the railroad of the plaintiffs, and appurtenances, beyond that provided for by the several statutes which authorize them to build and work their road in this state. All lands held by the company for the purpose of working the road are to be considered appurtenances, and their cost became properly a part of the cost of construction, and taxable

as such, and not subject to be controlled by general tax laws, or special burdens: Union Bank v. The State, 9 Yerg. 499; Wallis v. Stetson, 2 Mass. Rep. 146; People v. Manhattan Company, 9 Wend. 351; Mayor v. Ohio R. R. Co., 6 Gill 288.

A specific mode of taxation is provided, which has been paid, and if this tax is sustained, the property will be doubly taxed for state purposes.

But it is not liable to taxation in the method claimed, because the property taxed is appurtenant to the road: Wayne County v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 3 Harris 351; Railroad v. Berks County, 6 Barr 70; Schuylkill County v. Berks County, 1 J. 202; Lehigh County v. Northampton County, 8 W. & Ser. 336.

Turrell, for defendant in error.—The exemption is claimed because the statutes giving the privilege to plaintiffs to construct the road, is a contract the burden of which cannot be increased by taxation — and that the property is appurtenant to the road, and therefore exempt.

They are not entitled to the exemption claimed unless it be so expressly provided in the statutes.

Taxation is a prerogative of sovereignty, and its relinquishment is not to be assumed by any words which do not indicate a clear intention to abandon it: Prov. Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514. This is reiterated by this court: Easton v. The Commonwealth, 10 Barr 450, and Academy of Fine Arts v. Philadelphia County, 10 Harris 497.

2. Are these works appurtenant to the road? The rule is clearly stated in The Railroad v. Berks County, 6 Barr 75. Such buildings are said to be "not appurtenant to the road, but to the business done upon it;" and the same is held in Wayne County v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 3 Harris 351.

The opinion of the court was delivered by WOODWARD, J.

We are of the opinion that the annual tax of ten thousand dollars imposed upon the company by the 5th section of the Act of 27th March, 1846, was intended to compensate the Commonwealth for the right of way through her territory, and that the tax imposed by the 6th section of said act upon that portion of the company's stock which represents the cost of construction in Pennsylvania was meant to be in lieu of all other...